Greeting old St. Nick with milk and cookies won’t be the only refreshment choice in Savannah households this Christmas season.

Thanks to the Savannah City Council, a six-pack of Heineken or a nice Chablis can be among your festive offerings.

Council members Thursday expedited passage of a Nov. 8 voter referendum approving Sunday sales of beer, wine and liquor. City officials had planned to enact the ordinance in January, but approved the new ordinance on first and second reading to make it effective immediately.

City Revenue Director Tom Vanderhorst said it would help Savannah businesses compete with other municipalities that also had fast-tracked passage.

Port Wentworth and Statesboro stores already are selling.

Joey’s, a convenience store in Port Worthworth, has been ready for customers for two weeks.

“It’s been kind of slow, actually,” said Don Stapleton, the co-owner. He hopes sales pick up once word spreads that Sunday sales are happening.

Greg Parker, president and CEO of The Parker Companies, which operates 26 Parker’s convenience stores in Georgia and South Carolina, began selling in Statesboro last week and says he’ll be ready for this Sunday in Port Wentworth and Savannah. Stores had locked the coolers on Sunday to comply with the Sunday restriction.

“The beer is there,” he said. “We’re all set up. We’re excited about it. It’s good for the city and it’s good for us.”

Grocery stores, convenience stores and package stores have the option of selling as soon as this Sunday between the hours of 12:30 p.m. and 11:30 p.m. But state law will still preclude package stores from selling liquor on Christmas, which this year falls on a Sunday. Package sales of beer and wine will be allowed on Christmas, though.

Opening on Sunday would mean more labor costs and higher utility bills for package stores normally closed on Sundays.

“I’m not opening,” said Paul Ganem, owner of Johnnie Ganem Package Shop at 501 Habersham St. “I feel like it will spread six days of sales over seven days, and I feel like the windfall of taxes the state is expecting is not going to happen.”

Habersham Beverage at 4618 Habersham isn’t planning to open, either, at least not until the new year. Partner Chuck Fountain wasn’t aware the city was planning to move up passage.

“With such short notice we had no plans to open this weekend,” he said. “And it’s not fair to the employees who had made plans for the holidays.”

Reporter Constance Cooper contributed to this story.

New council discusses organization, openness

Mayor-elect Edna Jackson gathered her council around her Thursday to begin laying the groundwork for the next four years of her administration.

She and the council, including new aldermen-elect Carol Bell, Tom Bordeaux, John Hall and Estella Edwards Shabazz, will be inducted into office Jan. 3. They have tentatively planned to hold a Jan. 10 retreat to establish a mission statement and set priorities and will have their first regular council meeting Jan. 12.

Several times, Jackson reminded council she had run on a promise of inclusion and openness.

“The city is watching us,” she said. “We can make ourselves successful or we can be perceived as confusion.”

Though the council-elect did not make specific recommendations for mayor pro tem, Jackson indicated her preference.

“All of us ran on diversity,” she said. “We need to make sure we have diversity in all we do.”

Jackson said she had asked whether council could deliberate by secret ballot in making its choices for pro tem, chairman of council and vice chairman, but on advice from City Attorney James Blackburn, instructed council such deliberations could not be allowed in executive session and a vote would be public.

She has already received a congratulatory letter from Attorney General Sam Olens, who earlier this year rebuked council for not following open meetings law. Jackson wants to avoid any possible repeat.

“I’m going to be one of his best friends,” she said.

Council in January also will consider the contracts of its three employees, the city manager, clerk of council and city attorney.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

"Do they realize that their asinine expansion of the State's smoking restrictions put bar owners at a disadvantage to bars in other municipalities?"

Sometimes health and welfare is more important than the small financial gain that bars may have in other places that allow smoking in their establishments.

In the long term that alleged gain probably withers to a financial loss for those municipalities that have not imposed such restrictions in the cost of illnesses this poison inflicts upon it's users in the form of E.R. visits that are often paid for by the taxpayers and days lost from work.

Allowing bars to open on Sundays would be an even bigger boost to the local economy, by giving legal businesses that sell a legal product an extra weekend day to earn revenue. I'm sure they don't get reduced rents for being arbitrarily forced to close one weekend day, thanks to the God-botherers and busybodies. The Blue Laws are archaic and antiquated. Time for some more voter referendums to further remove barriers to doing business in Savannah.

it's really hard to believe the town cares about our health and the quality of the air, when we have no emissions testing for cars, and then, that infernal paper mill...

I'm sure all those things, and the amount of fast food consumed by people have a much greater impact on our heath and medical bills, but you won't see the paper mill being closed, or a ban on trans-fats. As they say, money talks, b.s. walks. ;)

I'm 100% against the smoking ban. It doesn't stop anybody from smoking. What it has accomplished is to stop enough people from going downtown and spending their money to make an negative impact on Savannah small businesses (and people's livelihoods),

I was simply suggesting that the city council (and the anti-smoking gestapo who probably have never owned a business) were being disingenuous about their reasons for wanting this ban. Just like those ID stings on St Patty's day, to "certain" establishments it's all about control, really. Now, you can stop being disingenuous and pretending you know how "all" of us lefties think.

I agree 100% which is why I believe that the restrictions imposed on smoking are motivated in part by at least a perception that in the long term businesses will do better thus increasing taxes collected.

I also believe that whatever monies that can be saved by lessening the cost borne by local government for indigent care cost by smokers visiting emergency rooms is a factor that has been considered.

There are emission control standards that cars and factories must meet imposed by the federal government which I'm sure individuals like Westicles would like to get rid of.

I remember back in the 1980's a friend of mine, Dr. Dickinson, along with others, formed a group to push for cleaner air and for some of the most egregious violators to install or upgrade scrubbers.

There still may be improvements needed in this area but as bad as the air may be now it really has improved since the days when the first thing you smelled each morning was air that smelt like rotten eggs and sulfa. When hazy days wasn't just an early morning fog.

"[i]Your pathetic dependence on the government is a weakness, not a strength.[/i]"

Anything I might receive from the government has been earned and has been paid for in ways in which you could probably never imagine.

I remember you once posting that when it came time for you to retire you expect to receive all the government benefits that you have earned. Good for you. You should get all the benefits that you have earned.

"[i]I'm 100% against the smoking ban. It doesn't stop anybody from smoking.[/i]"

Restricting those who smoke in bars isn't meant to stop them from smoking. Stopping an addiction to tobacco takes a will power that a few hours at a bar not smoking will not help.

"[i]What it has accomplished is to stop enough people from going downtown and spending their money to make an negative impact on Savannah small businesses (and people's livelihoods)[/i]"

I would like to see some data that restricting smoking in and close to bars, restaurants etc cost businesses money after the initial impact wears off and how many people have lost their jobs because of this alleged loss of business.

For example, Savannah's oldest establishment says business is down by 50% and is considering closing their doors due to the ban.

Disclaimer: despite my user name, I am in no way connected to this place or it's owner

http://tinyurl.com/6nz377g

Why not strike down the part of the law that applies to private clubs, and let certain places get a private club license where people pay a membership fee, so they can be comfortable and smoke while they spend their money? No one is ever "forced" to enter a business that allows smoking so why does the city need to impose it's will on others? Why should a bunch of complainers who probably never go out to these places decide how a business should be run? By all means keep the non-smoking bars too. Let people decide which businesses they choose to patronize.

Would you be ok with the city banning all fast food restaurants. or even banning trans-fats, for health reasons like NYC did? That would surely benefit me, because I don't eat the nasty stuff, and I'm sick of picking up fast food garbage people throw out of their cars off my lawn and sidewalk. Who needs Krispy Kreme donuts anyway? They have zero nutritional value. Careful, it's a slippery slope here...

The real issue is how much control should a city government have over it's business owners and citizens. Make no mistake, this is about control. And you don't even need to be a smoker to see that this is wrong.

that I don't have problem with a smoking ban in restaurants or even bars that have live music or dancing. Those types pf places aren't likely to be hit by a loss of business like the "neighborhood" bars, and that way, everyone could go out and not feel unconfortable no matter what their preference. If only the city council would try to see things from the standpoint of business owners, this town would be doing a lot better.

If they would strike down the ridiculous ban on 18-20 year olds in music venues that serve liquor, we'd see a much wider variety of touring bands in Savannah, that now only go to places like Athens and Charleston. By changing a few bad laws, the city could bring in a bunch more revenue without even charging a dime to the taxpayers. if they'd only pull their heads out of their rear ends, that is.

"[i]Why not strike down the part of the law that applies to private clubs, and let certain places get a private club license where people pay a membership fee, so they can be comfortable and smoke while they spend their money?[/i]"

I can find nothing wrong with this idea and would support such a exemption in the smoking ban provision. If a bar was so dependent on their customers that smoked a private club would be ideal for them but I bet they would then come back and say that without their non-smoking customers they would will not be able to survive.

"[i]So much for your false claim that you aren't a lefty, seeing that you are answering to posts that were addressed to "You lefties."[/i] "

Your second post was aimed at me after I made my first post and your, "Your pathetic dependence", statement was a poor attempt to equate me to the left and was not a generic statement about how you feel about lefties in general.

I have always been an independent and a moderate. I have rarely voted a straight party ticket, something I bet you can't admit to, and your parsing words to satisfy your groupies and your other nic, Caddyshack, won't change this FACT.

However, your feeling about the left and the statements you have made about them, such as "[i]Most lefties are parasites,[/i]" you have also made about Democrats in general and even moderates. I have similar feeling about those on the far right except I consider them complete nut jobs who worships only one thing, money.

Unlike you, I believe that the mentality of the far left and the far right and their intransigent views will eventually be the reason this country sinks to third world status. It's heading that way now and the nut jobs on the extreme ends of our political system will be the cause if we allow it to happen.

As to Caddyshack's question:

"[i]Are you Pro-Choice?"[/i]

Emphatically NO! I believe life begins at conception and the only justification for abortion would be to save the life of the mother.

There are some genetic conditions that could affect the unborn child that one could argue would justify an abortion such as an anencephalic baby.

In a post with DocMartin you admitted to being Caddyshack so I am only going by what you posted. You also said that Raji was you and that he was a mix of several people you knew. Now these were your assertions not mine. Now these things are not that important and you can be as many people as you like. It just gets a little confusing at times but it isn't a real hardship. ;)

"[i]You sure do get defensive when I refer to lefties.[/i]"

Lefties, righties what difference do they make? Well, you make the difference in your posts when you have on more than one occasion posted that you would never vote for a Democrat again. You have often lumped moderates into the same pile you put those awful lefties. You once disagreed with me that there were no such things as moderate or left leaning Republicans until I showed you that there are (although I must admit that that they are a dying breed, unfortunately).

"[i]Aren't you one who wants the government to force people to do what YOU want?"[/i]

I have never stated that I want the government to do what I want. I have only stated my opinions. Same as you and everyone else. Do we not have that right in this country to state our opinions?

"[i]Is there a support group for lefties in denial?"[/i]

I think you might find them right around the corner from the support group for righties in denial.

Just remember Westicles, vote for Newt in the upcoming Republican primary!

"[i]Who was that lefty nitwit who wanted the GOVERNMENT to FORCE Georgia Power to give discounts on certain peoples' power bills?"[/i]

I don't know who that nitwit was who was trying to FORCE THE GOVERNMENT to do something but I lobbied the PSC to add to Georgia Power's discount for senior citizens the same discount for those that were 100% permanently disabled but only if they met the same financial requirement as seniors had too.

Since Georgia Power's discount for seniors is capped at about $14.00 per month it would not have been much help but for those that do not own their own homes (unlike many seniors) and whose incomes could not exceed $10,000.00 per year or less (same as seniors who qualify but would keep people like you and I from getting such help) it was and still is a good idea.

Up until 2008 I lobbied for the disabled; shared my home with people who had lost theirs; helped with filing for disability claims and writing appeal letters; provided financial assistant to some that did not have any money.

Now I know you probably think those things that I have done and those things I tried to get done for those less fortunate, many who were also disabled, were probably STUPID since I never charged anyone for the hours I spent trying to get their disability.

BTW, I never failed to get anyone whose case I worked on disability in all the years I was doing this except 1 person. The reason why he did not get his disability is because he could not provide the necessary medical documentation. He was trying to lie his way into a monthly check. It happens but not as often as you and people like you believe.

Now friend tell me who was that nitwit that was trying to FORCE THE GOVERNMENT to do something?

"[i]I am stumped trying to think of a poster on this site that is more liberal in his/her postings than you. Really now, can you name one?"[/i]

Well doc you being stumped about something could just be your failing memory. Have you considered that?

"[i]Self-perception is a carnival mirror."[/i]

You should stop projecting, doc.

BTW doc, I have rarely read a Westicles post, especially where he and I were "discussing" an issue, where you did not eventually chime in with a post or two that echoed or at least supported his position or assertions.

When I see you post after Westicles it reminds me of an old hymn:

"[i]Where He leads me I will follow
Where He leads me I will follow
Where He leads me I will follow (I'll go with Him)
I'll go with Him (I'll go with Him)
I'll go with Him (I'll go with Him)
I'll go all the way (all the way) "[/i]

The discount program already existed. All I was asking the PSC to do was to get Georgia Power to expand that program to include those that were 100% permanently disabled and who met the same financial requirements as the one they already had in place.

Their discount program was already funded to the point in which they would not have had to raise anyone's rate. You have a problem with the PSC asking Georgia Power to include a group that probably needs the discount more than most qualifying seniors?

"[i]That is the way of the weakling lefties: get the government to force their will upon others"[/i].

I can't speak for the lefties no more than I can for the righties. However, you seem to be believe that you are able to do both.

"[i]Do I have to point out that YOU are the one that brought me into this discussion?..."[/i]

I never brought you into anything. You interjected yourself in a exchange between Westicles and myself. The fact that you were in a previous exchange with him and I used that as a point of fact doesn't mean I owe you any response. You could deny that the post I reference between him and you was never made but that would be factually inaccurate. If it were you would had already done so. Your silence just goes to prove my point.

Since you are the one that wanted to play question and answer here's a couple of questions for you (and I won't have to name names to make my point):

How many so called lefties on this board are opposed to abortion?
How many of them voted for someone other than Obama during the primary?

Since you already know the answer to these two questions you now know the answer to the first one.

I have no problem with when you are right but you can never admit when you are wrong.

"In a post with DocMartin you admitted to being Caddyshack so I am only going by what you posted."

The person this post was addressed to and the person in which it allied to was not you. The fact that you were in the post at all is irrelevant to the point being made. He could have had the exchange with anyone but the post and the point of that post would not be about them.

But since you can never admit to being wrong and since you have not denied the point of that particular exchange then that proves that it did take place and it also proves that Westicles admitted that he posts as both Westicles and Caddyshack (which really isn't important either).

I don't owe you any answers and I won't bring into this totally irreverent discussion someone who has not been a part of it.

"[i]I'm hard right and support 1st term abortions; what does that prove?[/i]"

Do you know of any hard left that are against abortion? And I can't think of anyone I know that are hard left that voted for our great Sec. of State in the primary.

"[i]Claiming you are "moderate" is as silly as me making that same claim... "[/i]

Well when you put it that way and since you admit to being even right of Hitler my positions would probably seem to you, regardless of how moderate they may be, as being down right communistic!